Just Posted: Our hands-on Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 preview article with video preview. You may well have already heard about Sony's full frame compact camera with a fixed 35mm F2 Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* lens. We've had a chance to play with a pre-production RX1, delve through the menus and discuss its technologies with Sony. We've prepared a four-page preview detailing the RX1's features and capabilities and discussing whether we think the world is ready for a $2800 full frame, fixed-lens camera.

Let's say my Canon T2i with Sigma 30mm f/1.4 was about $1400. So $2800 for half the size? Maybe, I wish it was f/1.4. I'm investigating a Sony NEX 5r with a Nokton 35mm f/1.2. I hear there will be some new SLR Magic around this range. That would be about $2k for that setup and not as compact.

That's like comparing a kit lens with a L-lens. Your combinations can't match the RX1. DXO gave the RX1 one of the best sensor ratings. The Spanish site dslrmagazine measured the lens sharpness and concluded it was one the best they ever tested.

These demos almost always look great, but objectively, I'd say the IQ looks cleaner, more artifact free than both the 5D3 and the D800. It has a better codec and 1080p60, so right there it has them both beat. Of course, it has a fixed lens, but as you can see the videographer made the 35 f2 sing, so...

Dios Mio! There are so many clowns on this thread I'm surprised the Shriners aren't recruiting from it. If the AF and IQ are competent, then this will be a landmark camera in the digital age. To all the payasos complaining about the fixed lens, get over it. Ever hear of HCB? Shot with one focal length: 50mm. Ever hear of Garry Winogrand? One focal length: 28mm. Viewfinder? Optical only for both! No parallax correction!@!!! How did they ever do it!!!! And compared to those two giants, we all stink. Price? It's a freaking giant sensor with a Zeiss AF lens in a tiny body. Want an camera with changeable lens, VF and a Zeiss f2 35mm? Buy a D600 and a Zeiss ZF 35 F2. Same price. Oops, no AF. And watch people run when you try to take their photo on the street. So if you are into street photography, love the 35mm focal length and want a small, stealthy, gorgeous camera, this is the one for you. Otherwise please voice your complaints about enormous size of the D600.

Was right with you until you said this: "Buy a D600 and a Zeiss ZF 35 F2. Same price. Oops, no AF." and ran your argument in a bit of a circle. Henri Cartier Bresson and Gary Winogrand both shot cameras without AF. How did they ever manage on the street? Pre-focusing, using the DOF markings, practice. A ZF 35 f2 on an D600 is clearly not a street camera because of the size, but then again, you don't necessarily need an RX1 either. An X100, X-Pro1 or a GRD IV will be more than fine. A fixed lens is never a liability unless you run out of imagination.

Agree with you on the need for AF. My point was that those who check boxes on feature lists would just be trading one set of check boxes for the other. Imagine the howls if the lens was MF and the price was 200 less! The price is not 'ridiculous' and the fixed lens is not a constraint if you like 35mm!

[quote] Want an camera with changeable lens, VF and a Zeiss f2 35mm? Buy a D600 and a Zeiss ZF 35 F2. Same price. Oops, no AF. And watch people run when you try to take their photo on the street. So if you are into street photography, love the 35mm focal length and want a small, stealthy, gorgeous camera, this is the one for you. Otherwise please voice your complaints about enormous size of the D600. [end]

Come on dpreview: With all that hype about the exciting new Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1, isn't it high time by now for an In-Depth Full Review? Let us see all the details, these diagrams and sample shots - you name them!

Actually I thought like you till I realized that this is a Zeiss branded full frame lens and not some run of the mill lens.The Zeiss ZM manual focus lens costs a cool $1100 brand new and this one has AF as well. So the body only price of this cam is definitely below $1999 which makes it reasonably priced.

Looks good on paper. Love 35mm lenses! This camera is obviously aimed at Leica owners/street photographers/photojournalists. Many who could buy one of these by merely selling a lens. However Leica people are used to getting the entire package not paying extra for lens hoods and this kind of nickel and dime on expensive goods is annoying to say the least. It seems like they could have merged the NEX7 viewfinder technology into this and had a better camera than one with an external OVF.

Yes, this camera is expensive, and the lack of VF or other analogue controls are annoying. Why release the perfect camera now, there won't be much more to aspire to in the future if Sony pleases too many now.

But a full frame sensor compact is a rare and unusual being, so Sony can charge whatever they want, and people will pay. The market is right for this, and once all the people that want this have it, then the next cameras will be targeted at those that haven't fallen for this. And lack of changeable lenses = no extra income from owners

Sony is definitely making bank on this, which will help fund the "real" full frame compact. Or at least, keep everyone's attention on Sony long enough

This is not so much an enthusiast camera as much as it is a purists camera so price is not the main issue. The only with this camera is that embarrassing and ridiculous compact camera style popup flash. Sony approach a purist camera with consumer mentality, Leica on the other hand understand what a purist wants. Other than that the camera looks near perfect to me.

In a few years I can see a few events coming up like these:- offer on Ebay: "The black dot you see on the top left is a piece of felt that I glued on to give the pop-up flash a smooth stop. It does not affect the generally high value of this camera"- offer on Ebay: "20$, repair of the Sony RX1 flash unit"- thread on the Sony enthusiasts forum: "How to replace a broken RX1 pop-up flash spring"- question on the Sony enthusiasts forum: "Hi, I am new to the forum. Can anyone tell me how I could possibly open that little hatch on the top plate of my RX1 so I can see what hides unter it?"I know I am unfair ;-) Hermann

I did a quick check and I touched 1/4000 on my 1/8000 capable camera only twice in the last 3 years. Unless you are shooting at f1.4 on a bright sunny day (and where I live there is no dearth of sun) you won't need 1/4000 at all.

However I have felt the need for a faster flash sync (max flash sync is around 1/200 - 1/300 for most cameras) VERY often and with the RX1 you can use an external flash safely upto 1/2000.

This is *exactly* the camera I've wanted for years...except twice as expensive (and justifiably so). Ultimately, I'm hoping Sony's strategy with this will be similar to Apple's with the Macbook Air: introduce a beautiful, advanced piece of gadgetry at an eye-watering price simply to establish a market segment, get people salivating over what they can't afford, then allow the price to plummet once consumers "get it". IF the RX1 can do what the MBA did, a lot of us will be very happy campers.

That camera up there as pictured is not 2800 dollars. That guy has the $599 optical viewfinder, the $179 lens hood, and the $249 thumb grip. So that camera costs a little over 3800.

Trips up market are always interesting. In the united states consumers generally don't tolerate up market from brands that also sell cheep. Companies go to great lengths to work around this. Premium brand creation such as Acura and Infinity are examples of this. This may out perform a Leica X2 in every way but it doesn't say "Leica" on the front.

Form factor alone might sell some of these cameras and some shooters swear by the 35mm focal length, but is that enough? I think it is fair to ask who this camera is for, I also think it is fair to be excited about companies being willing to innovate, to push the boundaries of what a camera should be. For me personally I like the form factor, if I could switch out lenses too, this would be my next camera. Even a 50mm and a 90mm would be enough for me.

Yes, this is quite an achievement and premium product. But I feel that modern manufacturers can develop new models more quickly and more economically than in the past. Much of the conponentry, sub-assemblies, processing engines, etc. are already developed.

It's a virtual certainty that there will soon be aftermarket accessories costing far less. What I want to know is how does one focus using an optical VF that is not connected to the sensor. It has to involve a bit of guess work.

The many posts that run along the lines of "...for that money you could buy a (fill in the blank with any large heavy camera of your choice).." are amusing. Isn't a main selling point the size? This is not for everyone but it is a FF sensor inside a fairly small camera and many will want it for that reason.

Careful, logic like that might get you some unwanted attention around here. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to be under the impression that every camera is designed just for them, and the ones they don't want are unequivocal failures.

It's like people who by a small, expensive two-seat sports car instead of a big minivan or SUV. Not everyone wants to drive a big, clunky car, and are perfectly willing to spend more for a sport coupe, even if it's more money.

Thank you T3 and Mattwd for getting my post. After the camera is out about one month I expect the "wish list" threads to be hilarious....20 X zoom, huge built in OVF, tilting screen, larger hand grips, waterproof to 20 feet etc.

Long ago, when I was a young man, I was a working photojournalist. This was at the time when WeeGee and others were still using Speed Graphics. My specialty was sports, and, so, I chose the then-experimental (at a pro level) 35mm format for its portability. My camera of choice was a Contax-D. The reach of a 400mm f:5.6 lens made it unmatchable by 6x6-cm or 4x5-inch formats.

Now, my Pentax DSLR is the metaphorical equivalent of a 4x5 Graphic back then.

My 135mm FF Pentax f:2.5 lens (almost 50 years old!) fits on my Olympus M4/3 and becomes a fast, light 270mm. At that magnification, the extra depth-of-field is an advantage for sports.

I see my Oly PMini with EFV as the new-generation Leica IIIf. It can even mount Leica glass.

Those complaining about price, I understand, but this camera is being oriented to another market, uncaring about price and this camera looks like a killer concept with the exception that it lacks a built in viewfinder, the only negative I see.

All you naysayers, just watch as these things, once released in Dec, will be as rare as a D800

This is a camera for poseurs. Perhpas Sony is looking to polish its image? I know there are lots of newly-rich people in the developing world, but this camera is too, too precious for words. Super-cute!

HOWEVER: That it is a poseur is shown clearly by the Leica-copy lens shade -- complete with relief for the missing viewfinder.

Richard Schumer wrote:> That it is a poseur is shown clearly by the Leica-copy lens> shade -- complete with relief for the missing viewfinder.

You, sir, are an idiot.It's quite obvious from the RX1's size that an OVF covering the 35mm lens' angle of view, mounted on the accessory shoe, would have its field of view clipped by the lens shade, hence the need for openings on said lens shade to minimize the clipping.

Weellll not quite. The X10 (that's what you're talking about right?) is a 35 mm equivalent and price is 1200$..and I prefer Sony anyways. ILC's..yeah ok..but they've only just now released the 35 mm E-mount..

I"m all for butt ugly camera, the uglier the better so that I can stay discreet and have people stop asking how much my gear cost and concentrate on taking photos instead of staring at my beautiful camera.

I always thought that a person needs a DSLR with a OVF or a really stylish looking rangefinder with an OVF to take good pixels. I will be shocked if this camera actually takes a good pixel, in total darkness that's worthy to peep at. I for one will buy this camera if it takes a good picture, but then i'm not a hipster into the latest fashion.

For photography, I'd take an X-Pro1 or even an E-X1 over the RX1 any day. For video, this camera like most that Sony makes, should be epic. Great frame rates, shallow DOF and the excellent AVCHD codec. Perfect.

I think Sony has a very smart strategy here: when the DSLR and mirrorless markets start to become crowded, and suffer price erosoin, how to you keep on growing your revenues, from one year to the next? The only way is to go up market... better technology, more sophistication, quality, innovation... all this at ever increasing prices.

Just an example to illustrate my point: With a strategy like this, they won't be going the way of laptop manufacturers who started hurting, when a laptop goes for $400 instead of $4000 as was the case in the beginning.

Call me shallow but holding a camera with the SONY logo ot its forehead is a huge turn off. And for enthusiasts (i.e., non professionals) it is a big deal. It detracts from the photographic feeling... Why didn't they hide it like Panasonic does in (at least some of) their Lumix series? What's wrong with introducing a similar branding? Even DPReview mentioned that using "Cybershot" for this camera is a brave decision by Sony. Branding is important.

It's not shallow at all. Sony as a newer camera-maker that started by taking over the Minolta (who was at one time 1 of the "big four" camera makers). They are a huge global company more known for electronics and simply don't have the photographic cachet or pedigree of a Nikon or Canon. That's just how it is. And it's one reason, as you mentioned, Panasonic rebranded their camera line "Lumix". It doesn't mean these two companies don't make great gear, it's that they are stigmatized by being known first and formost for making gear other than cameras.

I don't think Sony understands the value of branding, or perhaps they are just too wrapped up in making the Sony brand a generic brand meaning "good."

When they acquired Konica-Minolta, they threw away some valuable brand names and branded their new line "Sony Alpha." Their cameras should have been called Minolta, and their lenses would have had more prestige if they were Hexanons.

Today they announce a very nice high end camera... one designed to compete with Leica, and they decided to call it a Sony Cybershot. Just like those $89 garbage cams you see in Walmart. Exactly what were they thinking?

If they had branded this camera as a Zeiss, then no one would complain about the high price. But instead they branded it as a Sony Cybershot.

I'd say branding is only important at either the low end (P&S, maybe entry level DSLRs) or the luxury end (Leica), at this price point people should know enough about photography to judge a camera on technical merit rather than just the name.

Sometimes you just have to salute Sony's engineering prowess and sheer business lunacy; they make Apple seem fuddy duddy in comparison. A slightly thinner phone? Nah, let's go for the full frame sensor inside the point and shoot body! And price it so no one can buy it! Yeah!

If they could just apply that brashness to the entire experience, not just bits and pieces which don't fit together... Another difference with Apple, it will *of course* have some infuriating detail - oh it outputs a new kind of RAW and NO ONE can see it or some such...

They don't have different limits. It was an error in DPR's database. They have the same range 100-25,600 expandable to 50 and 102,400. Looks like the same sensor as the new D600, same size, same pixels, same iso range. The A99 version is modified for phase detect AF, but they are being termed versions of the same sensor.

The bset thing to invest your photo dollar is glass. Cameras come and go. But lens are good for a long time in a system. This is a bad investment. Film is good.P.S. That viewer is going cost big bucks for what it is.

That is true. But the real investment is in the photographs. If the 24MP are as clean as being hyped, the camera should have a good 3 year life (perhaps longer with a good shutter life and service program), so that's $80 per month. I can eat that if the lens and sensor combine to give stunning IQ. Heck, I can even eat $80 less food and lose some weight in the process :-)

I like your way of thinking Najinsky, simple and positive. Most probably most people here complaining are justifying to themselves the fact that they cannot afford this. But if they had 10 times more money and 2800 was 280 to them, they'd buy it in an instant and be proud to have the best IQ/size ratio (possibly).

Hopefully the camera will end up selling at lower than the sum of its parts, in which case it would be tempting. That would mean of course that the lens needs to be amazing.

This looks like a wonderful street shooter for the advanced photographer with the means to buy one.

If Leica had built it, it would be a $10,000 camera, but even $2,800 is too much for me. And yes, for most buyers this will be a second camera, because a fixed lens camera with a prime lens just isn't all that versatile.

I'd love to own one, but the odds are the only way I'd get one is to find one used, on ebay for $500... sometime in 2017 when the third generation R3 comes out...

I'll never understand the idea that a camera with a short prime is not versatile. How do you think Henri Cartier Bresson made all those iconic images? A zoom lens?

Of course a DSLR is more versatile. Your point is well taken, but if your going to choose one focal length, few choices are better than a 35mm, a slightly wide, normal lens well suited for street shooting, and so much more. One of the reasons the X100 is so popular is because it has a fixed 35mm. Sony may be hoping to capture some of that magic, but in a FF body for the ultimate in IQ / shallow DOF.

I hardly think Henri Cartier Bresson is a good example of versatility. The man was a great artist, but only when it came to photojournalism and street photography. I agree that this camera might suit him well, but you just can't use him as proof of versatility.

And while he used a fixed lens, it was a 50mm lens, and not a 35mm lens, like the one on the R1.

There is a wide range of cameras that have some degree of versatility... with a fixed prime lens camera sitting on the bottom rung, and a 30X superzoom camera sitting on the top rung. You select whichever type suits your needs best.

The R1 is really a very specialized tool, meant for those who can afford one and who either only need one focal length, or who simply have the means to own multiple cameras.

marike6:"I'll never understand the idea that a camera with a short prime is not versatile."Show me a pretty portrait or macro with 35mm. ;-)The Sony is great for a special purpose, but for this price, many customers expect more versatility.

Yes, exactly. This is why I think Nikon's CX mount will turn out to be a good idea, because when (if) they finally release some compact fast primes they'll have actually pocketable cameras. (Enthusiasm for the RX100, which is essentially a fixed lens CX camera shows this.) The Nikon 18.5mm f1.8 looks pretty close to the mark -- now all they need is a slightly better body than the V1.

I still think that M4/3 is the best 'compromise' on body/lens/sensor size and now that Olympus has a SONY sensor in the E-M5, you need not look elsewhere if small size is a primary consideration.

The RX1 is just a little too big to be truly pocketable and too small to be truly ergonomic. And seriously, you need it to have interchageable lenses to take full advantage of the FF format. I can't see many FF fans adding this to their arsenal if they already have a suite of lenses for their FF camera that they cannot use on the RX1.

Exciting camera and great achievement by Sony (as usual) but not as useful a tool when you think about it but hey, won't it sell heaps on impulse purchase for the well heeled!

I had the Konica Hexar (Silver) film camera with super 35/2 Hexanon lens once. It's been reincarnated in the Sony RX1 ... kind of. Though I didn't and don't care for a fixed, 35mm FOV restriction, many feel comfortable with it. A good move by Sony. If they can offer RX2 with interchangeable lenses, they'll be satisfying many photogs, pro and amateur, and making lots of Yen to boot.

No. The RX10 needs to be shirt pocketable. That means APS, or even sub APS sized sensor, and a fixed 35mm equivalent lens. If you want a zoom you've already got pocketable and non-pocketable solutions, ie RX100 and Nex.

well, compared to 5D MKII with 40/2.8: width - ok a some 3 cm, height about the same with viewfinder, depth almost the same (-10 mm, or minus some 2 cm with 35/f2). just the weight is half with one of those lenses, but compare the grip. oh, no! you have to pay $249 to have A grip on this compact. and even then the 5D would be much easier to hold despite it's weight. and you have interchangeable lenses, as you might have noticed such advantage. so there's not much of a wow for this cam, sorry.

it it was a FF mirrorless cam measuring some 10x2x6 cm and costing less than $1500, then I might think about it.

Small cameras are great, but the idea that Canon and Nikon aren't making cameras that serious photographers demand is laughable. That's all they do. Until today Sony had zero FF cameras, but you think Nikon and Canon need to get serious?

I sound like a fanboy but you're the one getting all weak at the knees at this expensive niche camera.

well, somewhere in the post a Samsung NX100 and a 30mm f2 lens are winding their way towards me, which came to just over £300 new. pretty much ticks those boxes, and it'll do for me. good luck with the bargain girlfriend!